Skip to main content
Glama

ParlayAPI

by io.github.JacobiusMakes

parlayapi_parlay_verdict

Grade a multi-leg parlay: should you bet it, and at which book?

Give 2 to 12 legs (each shaped like a parlayapi_verdict bet) and get the
combined no-vig fair price, the single best BOOK to place the whole slip at
(a real parlay is one slip, not best-of-each), the parlay's EV, the weakest
leg, same-game correlation warnings, and (with stake) the payout. Best-price
is scoped to books the user can bet at (set once via
parlayapi_set_bettable_books, or pass region/books here).

Args:
    legs: list of leg objects, e.g.
        [{"sport": "baseball_mlb", "home": "Detroit Tigers",
          "away": "Kansas City Royals", "market": "h2h", "side": "Detroit Tigers"},
         {"sport": "baseball_mlb", "team": "Detroit Tigers",
          "market": "totals", "side": "over", "line": 8.5}]
        Each leg: sport, market (h2h/spreads/totals or a player-prop key),
        side (team, or over/under), home+away or team, player (for props), line.
    region: us (default) | eu | uk | au | ca.
    books: exact CSV of books you can bet at (overrides region).
    stake: optional stake amount, to compute the payout if it hits.
    book: optional, also report the parlay price at this specific book.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookNo
legsYes
booksNo
kellyNo
stakeNo
regionNo
bankrollNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly lists the outputs: no-vig fair price, best book for the whole slip, EV, weakest leg, same-game correlation warnings, and payout when stake is provided. It also discloses the book-scoping behavior and the optional book parameter. It does not mention side effects, but 'grade' clearly implies an analysis-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first line states the core purpose, the next paragraph summarizes outputs, and the Args section gives parameter details. The example leg objects are somewhat verbose but necessary because the legs parameter is otherwise opaque. There is little wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the legs object shape, the 2–12 leg constraint, book scoping, and optional stake/book parameters. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to detail them. The main incompleteness is the total omission of 'kelly' and 'bankroll', which prevents full understanding of all available controls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It richly documents legs with a worked example and field list, and it explains region, books, stake, and book. However, the schema includes 'kelly' and 'bankroll', which are completely absent from the description, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. This is a clear gap in an otherwise strong parameter explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Grade') and a clear resource ('multi-leg parlay'), and directly states the decision being made: 'should you bet it, and at which book?'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling parlayapi_verdict by explicitly focusing on 'multi-leg' and by referring to each leg as a parlayapi_verdict bet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when evaluating a parlay of 2–12 legs. It also provides practical guidance on book scoping, mentioning both parlayapi_set_bettable_books and passing region/books directly. The note that 'a real parlay is one slip, not best-of-each' is an implicit exclusion of using per-leg best-price tools, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ParlayAPI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools map to distinct workflows (raw odds, best-line, EV scan, arb, middle, single-bet grade, parlay grade), but several pairs are easy to mix up: find_ev vs best_bets both surface +EV opportunities, live_sports vs list_sports differ only in 'live', and verdict vs parlay_verdict have near-identical names. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, so it is not chaotic, but the boundaries are not all crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names share the parlayapi_ prefix and snake_case, but the suffix style is inconsistent: some are verb-led (get_odds, find_arbitrage, set_bettable_books) and many are bare noun phrases (consensus, verdict, source_quality, magic_link). The live_* and best_* groups are internally consistent, but pairs like list_sports/live_sports and verdict/parlay_verdict add confusion.

Tool Count3/5

22 tools is on the heavy side for an MCP server, even though the sports-betting domain is broad. Each tool has a plausible purpose, but the public demo/metadata tools (live_command_center, book_coverage, source_quality, live_sports) could probably be consolidated or separated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core domain well: sport discovery, game odds, props, consensus, best-line, EV, arbitrage, middles, single-bet verdicts, parlay verdicts, and account/signup flows. Minor gaps exist (no explicit book/market metadata list, no historical odds, no betting-account history), but agents can usually work around them.

Resources